Illegal Formation ?

[TXMike]

I must be missing something?

(video pending)

[TXMike]

I must be missing something?

[yt=425,350]HoIS_l3IZOo[/yt]

[110]

I see six on the line. May  be having a Canadian brainfart, but I seem to recall that six ain't no good.

[TXMike]

Aren't you Canadians all drunk this time of year anyway to deal with the cold?  Maybe someone who's eyesight is not impaired can take a look.

[BankerRef]

I've got 4 in the backfield and 1 in no-man's land pre-shift and the same after the shift.    Illegal formation. 

At the snap the player at the top of the formation is not a lineman and not a back.  Might be kinda picky to call on a typical play but you better be picky when abnormal trickery is involved.

[TXMike]

Which one is the mugwomp?

[Osric Pureheart]

Aside from what the R announced: widest man on the H's side.  If we're applying our "trick plays must be totally legal" test, is there a case for him being at least neither on or off the line?  

Alternatively, could the wingmen be erring on the side of making him be off the line under the assumption that the offense didn't want to cover the inside man and leave him ineligible by position?  

edit for clarity: If I see trips coming to my side, I'm going to assume they want one guy on the line and the other two off; if the middle guy puts himself on the line, the inside guy is obviously off, and the outside guy is somewhere in between (and doesn't talk to me so I can make him legal), then my first thought is going to be "rule him off the line so the middle guy is eligible".  If I miss that the middle guy is in fact a wandering ineligible and that therefore they're trying something else, that's what I'm going to do.

Do we know if there were two flags?

[Andrew McCarthy]

Do we know if there were two flags?

There were.  And the H is punching back.

[Morningrise]

Two philosophies are in conflict here. First is the desire to construe formations liberally to keep them legal. Myself, I've never thrown a flag for a mugwump yet. When the widest man is questionably staggered, as in this video, I make him a back if the next man is an eligible number, or an end if the next man is (as in this video) number 73. Making him an end makes this formation legal.

The second philosophy is that trick formations should carry a higher degree of scrutiny, and if there's ever a time to rule a mugwump, a trick formation is that time.

But the H is punching the widest man back, which he presumably wouldn't do if he deemed the man a mugwump.

I suppose there's a good chance I might punch back the questionably staggered man out of habit whenever the second widest man is that far wide. Since 99% of the time, only eligible numbers line up out there, I might neglect to check his number. That may be what happened here.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I agree with "if it's a trick play" make it 100% legal.  A-89 shifts out and then carefully sets up staying off the line in no-man's land and the H without hesitation punches back, and at the snap we immediately have two flags.  While I agree that many officials would let this go, I for one am not a fan of the "if he's close - make him legal" philosophy.  The trick formation is clearly trying to confuse the defense, and maybe it confused the crew a bit as well, but there's is no reason IMO to let the WR line up with an intentional stagger trying to make it look like he's in the backfield, while he's actually trying to be ruled on the line.

When the rule changed regarding the 7 on the line vs 4 in the backfield, the intent was to avoid the cheap foul that was the result of A only having ten players on the field.  I don't believe the rulemakers intended the change to effectively make this type of trick play legal.

For those who would use the "if it's close - make it legal" philosophy, and would treat this alignment as having only 4 in the backfield, what would you have if A-89 caught a TD pass from his mug-wump position?

[mishatx]

Which one is the mugwomp?

The "end", although I'd be more inclined just to put him in the backfield.  If that leaves 5 backs, like on this play,  .  If they broke the huddle straight into this formation, I might be willing to put him on the line, considering i "knew" they intended to have a split tackle on the play.  Since he shifted out of the backfield, and is intending to cover up a player that was previously the end, if he wants to be on the line, he needs to get on the line.